First thing I want to do here, is apologize to the readers of The Hoop Doctors for our “Hoop Docs TV” feature and any other embedded videos not working at the moment. If you are looking for someone to blame we would gladly let you on our ‘We hate CBS’ wagon, but it is getting pretty full at the moment. Yes, that’s right folks….CBS has decided to file a copyright complaint against The Hoop Doctors YouTube account because we uploaded a video clip of Blake Griffin during yesterday’s match-up between Oklahoma and Morgan State from a CBS broadcast.

I knew the US Economy was in rough shape, but I didn’t realize that it was that rough where what once was a large television network, would start to give out wrist slaps to blogs such as The Hoop Doctors for uploading 30 second clips from past network broadcasts. I mean hey, there were probably only about 40 different versions of the video on the web at the same time we uploaded our clip. I guess they are going after each YouTube account one by one? Bloggers beware…CBS is on the hunt…!! LOL…What a joke, do you really think you can regulate and control the web, CBS?

Actually I get it now! Maybe CBS filed the complaint out of sheer embarrassment. They must have been embarrassed that a basketball blog such as The Hoop Doctors, using little more than a handful of social media sites and a great network of bloggers and social media mavens was able to generate more views of our YouTube clip than a huge network like CBS could of their online version of the video, even though they blow millions of dollars in marketing and advertising annually.

This whole issue sort of reminds me of how the innovative businesses out there nowadays are often turning to open source business models to ensure long term prosperity, growth, and a healthy relationship with their end users who are becoming more internet and technology saavy. Whereas on the other hand you have dinosaurs like CBS who believe that trying to chase down a million small YouTube accounts is going to somehow help them prosper.

In case you still don’t get where i’m going with this CBS, let me spell it out for you. If you were to let clips from old broadcast material be uploaded and distributed without taking a hissy fit, you would realize in short order that the users you once believed to be copyright infringing against you, are in fact doing the work for you to make your content become popular on the web (maybe even viral) without you having to spend a dime on marketing, advertising, or human resource.

Let’s add to that fact that you would avoid alienating the exact people you work so hard and spend so much money to influence. Does the phrase “influence the influencers” mean anything to you? Probably not, but it should. Most companies in broadcast and digital media these days understand the importance of influencing the influencers….and in many cases (especially sports) this means bloggers.

So, to the readers of The Hoop Doctors, if you’ve made it this far into this post and are still reading, thank you for bearing with me on my rant. And have patience we have set up a new YouTube account and everything will be back to normal shortly.

As a final note to CBS….i’ll have you know that while I normally would just tune in to CBS and watch the NCAA March Madness….now i’ll do my damnedest to find some live streaming via the web from a Chinese site that is completely infringing on your copyright rules, and one that really doesn’t give a crap what you think about it…haha

Every viewer counts right? Or maybe you missed the business lessons on that concept as well….Be EZ

– Dr. Anklesnap

Watch NOW:

Like this Article? Share it!

great take. especially this part: “If you were to let clips from old broadcast material be uploaded and distributed without taking a hissy fit, you would realize in short order that the users you once believed to be copyright infringing against you, are in fact doing the work for you to make your content become popular on the web (maybe even viral) without you having to spend a dime on marketing, advertising, or human resource.”

I’ve had so many accounts banned from YouTube that I lost count (seriously).

CBS (or any other network) doesn’t care that we’re “doing the work for them” by uploading clips. They take them down because we aren’t generating any money for them. They want to drive users to CBS.com or Hulu where they will be forced to watch commercials and other ads to generate revenue.

The real solution to all of this would be for these companies to provide embeddable video on their own websites instantly (to keep up with the speed of blogging). I wouldnt mind watching a 15 second ad if the NFL or NBA provided an embeddable player with the best clips every day.

Hope it works out. I agree with what Chuck says, but until that happens, it sucks. Are they really losing revenue by having bloggers take their clips and put them on YouTube? I doubt much, if any revenue is being lost. I enjoy watching clips here and if they weren’t here, I wouldn’t know about most of them, so there’s no way I’d go back to CBS’s site or Hulu to watch. I’d think that the people that watch these clips represent a potential new audience, not someone who would usually go to CBS’s site in the first place, but doesn’t now because videos are available on YouTube or other sites. I have no data to back this up right now, unfortunately. What do you guys think?

@Chuck – you are right that if they provided good clips faster and made them embeddable I would use them. In fact I have to give NBA.com some props for at least trying to do this. I subscribe to the NBA.com account on youtube and try and embed their videos when I can. My problem is, NBA.com very rarely chooses to post the video clips i’m seeking. They are too worried about pushing PR of certain players, and also worried about offending other player’s that they don’t post the clips that the bloggers want. For example: If Kobe Bryant got dunked on by a rookie like Russell Westbrook….you would never see that clip on nba.com’s youtube account. Yet that is one that I would post and….damn quickly…

@Jason – totally agree with your hypothesis brah. There is no way that they are losing a significant or even measurable amount of revenue off of lost advertising CPM’s from people that watch the youtube video then avoid CBS.com. A great example is NBA.com itself. If big networks only wanted to drive viewers to their website to watch the clips, why would NBA.com create a youtube account themselves and post clips for people to embed? I’ll tell you why……It’s because NBA.com has enough brains to realize that if they take a more embraced attitude with the web, and they get a few videos with their brand on it going viral on the web by bloggers, it will eventually result in even greater brand recognition by the end users (and a targeted demographic they are seeking as well), which over the long haul will result in greater traffic to their home page (NBA.com) and therefore much greater long term gains in advertising revenue through CPM advertising.

Chris

I sympathize and feel bad for you, but on the other hand, I completely get their position. CBS pays crazy bucks for the rights to the tournament, so it’s definitely their perogative to protect that money they spend.

Plus, networks going after individual YouTube users is nothing new, I mean go talk to Brian from Awful Announcing. If you learn any lesson from this, its to not title your YouTube videos in a way that they’ll actually be found if someone is hunting for copyright infringement. And also, get yourself a non-descript username. And then be prepared to be shutdown and just move on, really it’s all you can do.

Chris

Yeah, but to your point, whether you or someone else makes those clips “viral” on YouTube gets CBS nothing … so basically they don’t have a lot to gain by letting you or anyone else control the content. (I hate being all on the side of “the man” but I guess I’m just not surprised, because I’ve seen it happen so often with AA and other sites that make use of PVRs and heavy video pulling.) I mean keep in mind that CBS Sports is posting highlights from each game on their YouTube account …

@Chris – understood…..just trying to make the point that some businesses embrace innovation, forward thinking, open source….essentially “the future of successful business”….and others still cling for life to old protocols that may one day have them in serious trouble.

But when it comes to what I consider “old stream media” or mainstream media I am not surprised at all that CBS would fall into the latter of the two…..

– I won’t repeat myself from previous comments but saying that “someone else making the clips “viral” gets CBS nothing” is the sort of short term thinking that is the problem with businesses who look to operate in broadcast media and crossover with the internet. If they try and treat the internet the same way they would with other broadcast media, they are doomed to fail.

Frank

Copyright is really getting to be a big problem for everyone EXCEPT the corporations nowadays.

Profesisonal social media maven

“social media mavens”

LOL
In other words: “people with too much time on their hands”

Gee

I see CBS is banning all the Star Trek channels on Justin.tv. This is all I watch. It’s sad since the rest of the channels are 15 year old girls with 300+ perverts and pedos asking them to show and get naked

Copyright infringement is copyright infringement, regardless of whether you’re “doing free marketing” for the creator of that work, or not, or what your intentions are with that work. Period. Copyrights exist for a reason. Sure, it might be great (in some ways of thinking) for everything to be open source, or open source after a certain period of time (which it is…it’s called “Public Domain”). But as of right now, copyright laws still exist in the United States. You broke the law, plain and simple, and CBS has every right to file against you.

When someone’s copyrighted work is taken by someone else and republished or reproduced over and over, whether in traditional media or Internet media, it devalues that content, and takes money away from the creator, who is certainly more entitled to any revenue from that work that anyone else, because they spent the time/money to create it in the first place, not you. How do you know CBS wasn’t planning on uploading that same clip today, which you already beat them to by uploading it yesterday? I’d be pretty darn upset about that. CBS makes millions of dollars, because they know what they’re doing. How much do you make?

If you think CBS should “get with the program” and join the new wave of the future (a.k.a. social media, open source, viral marketing, whatever) then you contact them directly and make a suggestion. You don’t take their copyrighted content and upload it to the web without permission. Just because “everyone else is doing it” doesn’t make it right or legal.

If you want to be a pioneer in social media, set an example for your followers. Obey the law, or suffer the consequences. Rant and rave all you want, but it is you who was in the wrong…not CBS.

P.S. I’d just like to draw your attention to the copyright notice on your own website…

“No part of this website may be copied, transferred, or re-created without the express written consent of TheHoopDoctors.com.
TheHoopDoctors.com reserves the right to take legal actions against anyone who does not respect its intellectual property rights.”

Wow. Talk about being hypocritical.

Steve

Wouldn’t 30 second clips fall under fair use? You’d think that the pro-copyright individuals posting here would have the fullest understanding of copyright law of all of us and pick up on that right away!

>>>>>
Section 107 sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
<<<<<

There ya have it. It is basically, in the end, up to the original creator of the work to determine “Fair Use”. This clip was used for commercial purposes. It devalues the original work. Therefore, probably does NOT fall under “Fair Use”.

> basically, in the end, up to the original creator of the work to determine “Fair Use”

Uhm… no. if that were the case, there would be no fair use at all. Corporations have been hostile to free use since its inception. Fair use is determined by the courts, not the creator nor the copyright holder (no matter how much they’d like it to be so).

drew

It seem’s that any corporation that does this certainly doesn’t want net-neutrality. If it isn’t generating money for them then it shouldn’t be there. Same capitalist idealism that people have grown so accustomed to, I’m honestly very tired of it.

I’m from England yet I live in bloody America, weren’t there war’s that fought my country over things like this? *chuckle*

There is a real danger with invoking ‘fair use’ in the US – in doing so, major content holders are asserting in courts that you are *admitting* that you have infringed on another’s copyright. Here is the language that Universal uses:

“”Plaintiff’s exclusive reliance on the affirmative defense of fair use necessarily establishes that Universal’s statement that her use was infringing was true,” said Universal. “For there to be a ‘fair use,’ there first must be an infringing use. Plaintiff’s arguments that her use could be a ‘fair use’ without infringing, or that Universal must be deemed to have impliedly represented that her use was not ‘fair,’ are contrary to the Copyright Act and controlling case law.” (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/07/universal-fair-use-is-still-infringing.ars)

I’m not saying that it’s a good argument, just that when talking about fair use in the US it’s helpful to think of how using it as a defense is spun by the other side…

Hoop Doctors… I have defeated these evil mega-corporate-conglomo-beasts before. In the article listed below are steps to combat the YouTube takedowns. Follow them, and you shall be victorious in the face of unreasonable and unjustified censorship. The Internet shall never surrender! Huzzah!

I think this is the main reason that Awful Announcing’s Brian Powell has nonsense titles to his videos. His title about a Micheal Jordan Slam Dunk would be “#23 slam”. He leaves it vague so the CBS/Youtube scanners will pass over it

aman shah

Ya doctors in india like the one old granny dr bela makhija from India is taking help from US to turn a girl in india crazy. She has master keys to the girls house . she uses a spray in the house ,bela makhija is a criminal . minded doctor . sjhe is paid to give the girl risperidoen injections lacs of RS. she stays in kaveri apts in india delhi.